Contract For Construction Work On Property Cannot Be Enforced Against Property Owner Absent Evidence Of Property Owner's Conduct Consenting To The Work And RSMO 431.180 Attorneys Fees May Be Awarded On Appeal
01/02/08
Contractor entered into contract for environmental remediation work by company affiliated with property owner. Thereafter, affiliated company refused to pay contractor invoices, claiming amount was too much. Contractor sued affiliated companies and property owner for breach of contract. Contractor presented no evidence of conduct by the property owner consenting to the work. Court finds no authority permitting suit against a third party beneficiary for breach of a contract to which it was not a party. Further, a principal cannot be bound unwittingly by a contract that its agent enters sloppily on behalf of a different principal. Contractor failed to prove fraud in order to make a pierce the corporate veil claim. Pierce the corporate veil claims generally serve to reach the shareholders of the pierced corporation, not horizontal affiliates. Trial court awarded attorneys’ fees to contractor pursuant to RSMo. 431.080. Court of appeals (finding “no merit whatsoever” to owner’s challenge on appeal to existence of the debt, that owner “turned a sizeable profit on the property as a result of” contractor’s work and that contractor “carried a significant account receivable [and] incurred considerable costs to collect on its services”) “exercising the discretion conferred upon the court by” RSMo. 431.180, grants contractor’s attorneys’ fees of $22,100 incurred on appeal. The Kiesel Company v. J&B Properties, Inc., et al., Docket No. ED89002 (Mo.App.E.D. 1/02/2008).
For more general information, visit Construction Law.
Back to News
At Swanson Midgley, we listen to our clients' needs in order to help them plan for the future and achieve their goals.
